Your Girlfriend/Wife/Daughter/Friend

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
61

Save the typed sighs. They lack the effect of the real thing, and simply make you look ridiculous. You may as well type “pursed lips, arched eyebrows and tight sphincter”

My point was that your attempt to take the high moral ground is a failure.

A sentence of life imprisonment for a child molester is a de facto sentence to a life of rapes and beatings. The only difference is that on the one hand you have an official sentence, and on the other you have either a blind eye or a wink-and-nod approval. Which is worse? That’s a debate that reasonable people can have - but only when the point is acknowledged.

At minimum, there are two distinct issues embedded here: 1) The appropriate nature of a penal system, which, when resolved can lead to a discussion of appropriate sentences for crimes; and 2) Failures of the mass-holding-cell concept.

What there is not is a sighing, braying point of moral superiority.

62

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
This little nine year old girl was raped and buried alive, while she clutched her little toy dolphin. Why is the guy who did that not yet in Hell?

Because ethics, justice, and morality are all theoretical constructs which have no existence outside the minds of humans. Tough shit, I’m sorry to break it to you.

Headhunter wrote:
Meet Mr. John Cooey, who killed Jessica pictured above. Now imagine this man has your little daughter in his hands. He gets sheer perverse joy from her whimpering cries for her mommy. He pushes her down and does unspeakable things to your little baby, and chuckles with delight at her screams.

Who could NOT want a slow torturous death for this creature?
I wish all those who are against the death penalty, especially because it is ‘cruel and inhumane’ would really think about all this.

Your story and the motives you attribute to him are HIGHLY IMPLAUSIBLE.

First, because pedophiles in western society are usually loners, introverts, and underachievers. They are weak souled individuals…not capable of great acts, either good or evil. [/quote]

Hilarious that you would actually use the word “soul” in your ridiculous introspective into the mind of a killer, while the rest of your transcript attempts to understand motivations strictly from your own narrow-minded point of view framed in some sort of stereotypical logic.[quote]

The guy looks like a sad old man. He doesn’t look devious. He doesn’t look cruel. He doesn’t look like a sadist, a person who would actually get off on causing harm to others. In all likelyhood, the guy was just a loner who wanted some social and/or romantic companionship. I can’t imagine him “chuckling with delight” while raping or killing a little girl. More likely, he flat out panicked, which is bound to happen when someone breaks the law.

The most vile, ruthless, cruel, and sadistic people tend to occupy the upper tiers of any society. The man above is not such a person. He is at the very bottom of the ladder. That’s why he “victimizes” young girls, instead of “victimizing” adult women.

In your interactions with others, you are constantly victimizing others and also being made a victim by others, according to your relative positions in the social hierarchy. All human interactions are hierarchical. No person ever confronts another on “equal terms”. Power dynamics are at play in every decision, every conversation, every movement you make throughout your entire life.

The kicker is that the vast majority of human beings do not possess the intellectual or emotional capacity to understand what I have just written above. They follow a knee-jerk reaction dictated by their emotions whenever such subjects are raised. I’m unique in that this shit does not affect me. That makes me a candidate for the ruling class, believe it or not.[/quote]

You’re very fucking far from unique…there are pompous assholes all around us. In actuality you are a self-righteous jackass whose only salvation will come with a realization of the hollowness which is your life; a realization you will spend your entire life fighting.[quote]

Remember:
The greatest crimes of a society are always perpetrated by those at the top and blamed on those at the bottom.[/quote]
What great crime is it that you committed in this case of this rape, abuse and killing? I mean you are a self proclaimed dweller amongst the elite…where did you go wrong?[quote]
To understand this is to have what it takes to be a king among men.[/quote]
I’m not sure you even understand what you are saying here…if you think you’re getting over on everyone by quoting someone else’s writing, and not appearing moronic by attempting to appear intelligent…think again.

63

[quote]pat36 wrote:

If somebody tortured and killed my kids, what happens to me after really doesn’t matter, the better part of me is already dead.
[/quote]

The real twister is, what if I have several children, as I do, and one of them is killed? I don’t have the luxury of dying because of that, with or without revenge. I have to be the strong one and carry on. and I’m not allowed to become a zombie, either. I guess my PR’s would go through the roof.

64

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

I was speaking about the ones who literally suggest the government be given the right to torture them, or “beat and rape them every day”, or other such punishments. The idea of something like that being a reality scares me more.

BostonBarrister wrote:
De facto what’s the difference between this and a life sentence in jail?

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
A life sentence in jail is a way of protecting society from them without going against basic human rights and decency.

Before anyone speaks up about me “defending” anyone, I’ll reiterate that its not a matter of what they do, its a matter of what we do.

BostonBarrister wrote:

You didn’t address my question. I asked what was the difference, de facto, between a life sentence in jail for a child molester and sentencing them to beatings and rapings. You answered with something about one intent of a life sentence.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Do prisons not have guards to break up fights or rapes? Can a prisoner not be confined from the others for his or her own protection?

Your question seems to assume that a life sentence in jail automatically translates to a lifetime of beatings and rape, whereas this is not true.

BostonBarrister wrote:

I suppose it “could” happen that the prison guards would take it upon themselves to protect a convicted child rapist from the other prisoners. I suppose it “could” happen that individuals who hurt children weren’t subject to massive amounts of abuse, including rapes and beatings, inside of prisons. But this would go against everything I’ve ever read on the subject.

So, again, de facto, what is the difference? Fill in the part that leads to “whereas this is not true.”

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

sigh

You’re right, theres no difference. As such, the government should, instead of pretending that it doesnt happen, encourage other inmates to beat and rape child molesters. They could even issue them nonlethal weapons and giant dildos, you know, just in case they aren’t feeling ‘up’ to the rape part of the deal. The inmates that beat them the worst, or rape them the most, will be considered acting in “good behavior”.

Also, child molesters (even if they are only suspect) will be subjected to torture from the government.

Following this lead, every other crime that causes people to become passionate and irrational will carry as strict a pentalty. The government will eventually have the right to torture anyone for suspecion of just about anything, and dole out whatever punishments angry mobs deem appropriate.

Is that what you want to hear?

You’re right, theres no difference. You win?

Save the typed sighs. They lack the effect of the real thing, and simply make you look ridiculous. You may as well type “pursed lips, arched eyebrows and tight sphincter”

My point was that your attempt to take the high moral ground is a failure.

A sentence of life imprisonment for a child molester is a de facto sentence to a life of rapes and beatings. The only difference is that on the one hand you have an official sentence, and on the other you have either a blind eye or a wink-and-nod approval. Which is worse? That’s a debate that reasonable people can have - but only when the point is acknowledged.

At minimum, there are two distinct issues embedded here: 1) The appropriate nature of a penal system, which, when resolved can lead to a discussion of appropriate sentences for crimes; and 2) Failures of the mass-holding-cell concept.

What there is not is a sighing, braying point of moral superiority.
[/quote]

Are you suggesting that the government should have the option of passing the sentence of “A lifetime of beatings and rapes”? Are you suggesting that the government be given the option of passing the sentence of “torture”?

Really, what the hell is your point here?

65

And here, I think, it is appropriate to insert a passage from Tom Sawyer.

"The funeral stopped the further growth of one thing–the petition to the Governor for Injun Joe’s pardon. The petition had been largely signed; many tearful and eloquent meetings had been held, and a committee of sappy women had been appointed to go in deep mourning and wail around the Governor, and implore him to be a merciful ass and trample his duty under foot. Injun Joe was believed to have killed five citizens of the village, but what of that? If he had been Satan himself there would have been plenty of weaklings ready to scribble their names to a pardon petition, and drip a tear on it from their permanently impaired and leaky waterworks.

I guess we can surmise on which side of the death penalty “issue” Sam Clemens was on.

The right side, I daresay. Try them until they are found guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt, then hang them by the neck until they are dead. A thirteen-foot length of hemp rope does wonders to rehabilitate rapists and murderers of children.

66
67

[quote]lixy wrote:

[/quote]

That man, of course, should be hanged from that bridge, and his body left there as a warning to all.

68

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
lixy wrote:

That man, of course, should be hanged from that bridge, and his body left there as a warning to all.[/quote]

You rock.

69

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I suppose it “could” happen that the prison guards would take it upon themselves to protect a convicted child rapist from the other prisoners. I suppose it “could” happen that individuals who hurt children weren’t subject to massive amounts of abuse, including rapes and beatings, inside of prisons. But this would go against everything I’ve ever read on the subject.

So, again, de facto, what is the difference? Fill in the part that leads to “whereas this is not true.”

sigh

You’re right, theres no difference. As such, the government should, instead of pretending that it doesnt happen, encourage other inmates to beat and rape child molesters. They could even issue them nonlethal weapons and giant dildos, you know, just in case they aren’t feeling ‘up’ to the rape part of the deal. The inmates that beat them the worst, or rape them the most, will be considered acting in “good behavior”.

[/quote]

Finally, a shred of rationality. Many of these guards have families. Its a shame they have to at least seem to protect child rapists/murderers — they should be able to get in on the action too!!

70

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322386,00.html

71

[quote]lixy wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322386,00.html

[/quote]

the Arlington man drove to an abandoned house in Fort Worth, beat his stepson with a baseball bat and sodomized him with a metal tool, police said.

As this is, after all, a Texan we’re talking about, I can only imagine that this is the tool he used.

72

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

I was speaking about the ones who literally suggest the government be given the right to torture them, or “beat and rape them every day”, or other such punishments. The idea of something like that being a reality scares me more.

BostonBarrister wrote:
De facto what’s the difference between this and a life sentence in jail?

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
A life sentence in jail is a way of protecting society from them without going against basic human rights and decency.

Before anyone speaks up about me “defending” anyone, I’ll reiterate that its not a matter of what they do, its a matter of what we do.

BostonBarrister wrote:

You didn’t address my question. I asked what was the difference, de facto, between a life sentence in jail for a child molester and sentencing them to beatings and rapings. You answered with something about one intent of a life sentence.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Do prisons not have guards to break up fights or rapes? Can a prisoner not be confined from the others for his or her own protection?

Your question seems to assume that a life sentence in jail automatically translates to a lifetime of beatings and rape, whereas this is not true.

BostonBarrister wrote:

I suppose it “could” happen that the prison guards would take it upon themselves to protect a convicted child rapist from the other prisoners. I suppose it “could” happen that individuals who hurt children weren’t subject to massive amounts of abuse, including rapes and beatings, inside of prisons. But this would go against everything I’ve ever read on the subject.

So, again, de facto, what is the difference? Fill in the part that leads to “whereas this is not true.”

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

sigh

You’re right, theres no difference. As such, the government should, instead of pretending that it doesnt happen, encourage other inmates to beat and rape child molesters. They could even issue them nonlethal weapons and giant dildos, you know, just in case they aren’t feeling ‘up’ to the rape part of the deal. The inmates that beat them the worst, or rape them the most, will be considered acting in “good behavior”.

Also, child molesters (even if they are only suspect) will be subjected to torture from the government.

Following this lead, every other crime that causes people to become passionate and irrational will carry as strict a pentalty. The government will eventually have the right to torture anyone for suspecion of just about anything, and dole out whatever punishments angry mobs deem appropriate.

Is that what you want to hear?

You’re right, theres no difference. You win?

Save the typed sighs. They lack the effect of the real thing, and simply make you look ridiculous. You may as well type “pursed lips, arched eyebrows and tight sphincter”

My point was that your attempt to take the high moral ground is a failure.

A sentence of life imprisonment for a child molester is a de facto sentence to a life of rapes and beatings. The only difference is that on the one hand you have an official sentence, and on the other you have either a blind eye or a wink-and-nod approval. Which is worse? That’s a debate that reasonable people can have - but only when the point is acknowledged.

At minimum, there are two distinct issues embedded here: 1) The appropriate nature of a penal system, which, when resolved can lead to a discussion of appropriate sentences for crimes; and 2) Failures of the mass-holding-cell concept.

What there is not is a sighing, braying point of moral superiority.

Are you suggesting that the government should have the option of passing the sentence of “A lifetime of beatings and rapes”? Are you suggesting that the government be given the option of passing the sentence of “torture”?

Really, what the hell is your point here?

[/quote]

Agreed, I don’t understand this argument at all.

73

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
The guy looks like a sad old man. He doesn’t look devious. He doesn’t look cruel. He doesn’t look like a sadist, a person who would actually get off on causing harm to others. In all likelyhood, the guy was just a loner who wanted some social and/or romantic companionship. I can’t imagine him “chuckling with delight” while raping or killing a little girl. More likely, he flat out panicked, which is bound to happen when someone breaks the law.
[/quote]

What’s the latest on this “sad old man”? Did he decapitate his victim? If so, it doesn’t make me sympathize with him too much…

74

[quote]
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Really, what the hell is your point here?

GDollars37 wrote:

Agreed, I don’t understand this argument at all.[/quote]

I really didn’t think it was that confusing in the context of the thread and the topic. I had two points. First, you (Cap) were coming in with a high-horse moral critique of people who were posting that this type of criminal should be subject to brutal punishments. I was pointing out that if you advocate life sentences in our current penal system, you’re essentially sentencing them to those same punishments, de facto - thus questioning the moral distinction.

The second point, to which I think Varq may have been alluding, was a reference to my position on another thread that the death penalty should be administered to convicted child molesters - and in this case, might even be preferable for various reasons.

75

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Really, what the hell is your point here?

GDollars37 wrote:

Agreed, I don’t understand this argument at all.

I really didn’t think it was that confusing in the context of the thread and the topic. I had two points. First, you (Cap) were coming in with a high-horse moral critique of people who were posting that this type of criminal should be subject to brutal punishments.
I was pointing out that if you advocate life sentences in our current penal system, you’re essentially sentencing them to those same punishments, de facto - thus questioning the moral distinction.

The second point, to which I think Varq may have been alluding, was a reference to my position on another thread that the death penalty should be administered to convicted child molesters - and in this case, might even be preferable for various reasons. [/quote]

No, BB, the fact that the prison system isn’t perfect (being as its not designed to be a sentence of beatings and rapes, and is actually in many ways designed to prevent them) does not make a life sentence in jail “de facto” the same as a sentence of beatings and rapes.

Now, we could get into the issue of if prisons need to get better at the job of preventing said beatings and rapes, but that sounds like a path littered with allegations of me being a “pedophile supporter” or “pedophile sympathetic” or other such nonsense.

You can call it “high-horse” morality, but my point remains: there are certain lines we as a society should not cross, regardless of what anyone does. Yes, that means anyone, no matter what they do or to who.

76

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

I was speaking about the ones who literally suggest the government be given the right to torture them, or “beat and rape them every day”, or other such punishments. The idea of something like that being a reality scares me more.

BostonBarrister wrote:
De facto what’s the difference between this and a life sentence in jail?

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
A life sentence in jail is a way of protecting society from them without going against basic human rights and decency.

Before anyone speaks up about me “defending” anyone, I’ll reiterate that its not a matter of what they do, its a matter of what we do.

BostonBarrister wrote:

You didn’t address my question. I asked what was the difference, de facto, between a life sentence in jail for a child molester and sentencing them to beatings and rapings. You answered with something about one intent of a life sentence.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Do prisons not have guards to break up fights or rapes? Can a prisoner not be confined from the others for his or her own protection?

Your question seems to assume that a life sentence in jail automatically translates to a lifetime of beatings and rape, whereas this is not true.

I suppose it “could” happen that the prison guards would take it upon themselves to protect a convicted child rapist from the other prisoners. I suppose it “could” happen that individuals who hurt children weren’t subject to massive amounts of abuse, including rapes and beatings, inside of prisons. But this would go against everything I’ve ever read on the subject.

So, again, de facto, what is the difference? Fill in the part that leads to “whereas this is not true.”

[/quote]

Excuse me, but is your argument that since the US is not able to guarantee the safety of her prisoners the same incompetent justices system should have the power to kill people?

77

We can not have the state being allowed to torture people. This would be hypocritical. The state would be employing people to rape and torture rapists and torturers. This would be nonsensical.

However the state should be allowed to kill those who have been found to be defective members of the human race who rape and torture for pleasure.

It is not about punishment - no act (which the state could do and not break its own laws) would be equal to rape or torture.

It is about protecting others in the community from such acts that the convicted would perform in the future.

78

This may be of interest: the following are all of the countries in which capital punishment is currently legal. With only a few notable exceptions, they are all third-world countries.

Afghanistan
Algeria
Antigua and Barbuda
The Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belize
Benin
Botswana
Brunei
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Central African Republic
Chad
China
Comoros
Congo, Democratic Republic of the
Congo, Republic of the
Cuba
Dominica
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Ghana
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Lebanon
Lesotho
Libya
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Mauritania
Mongolia
Morocco
Myanmar
Nauru
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Oman
Pakistan
Papua New Guinea
Qatar
Russian Federation
Rwanda
Saint Kitts and Nevis, Federation of
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Saudi Arabia
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Somalia
South Korea
Swaziland
Syria
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United States of America
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

79

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
This may be of interest: the following are all of the countries in which capital punishment is currently legal. …Japan
…[/quote]

I had no idea it was legal in Japan. Is it employed? What method?

80

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
This may be of interest: the following are all of the countries in which capital punishment is currently legal. …Japan
…

I had no idea it was legal in Japan. Is it employed? What method?[/quote]

I think its beheading with a true Samurai sword from the Kill Bill movies.